The presidential election of 2004 may be just as close as the presidential election of 2000. Once again, the outcome could be determined by a handful of votes in a single state. Yet, the stakes in this election are enormous. While the vote margin between President Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry may turn out to be small, the differences in where they intend to take the country are vast. Kerry is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. But he has labored in this campaign–and especially at the Democratic National Convention in Boston–to hide his true beliefs and obscure his record. In “The Case Against Kerry,” HUMAN EVENTS sets the record straight, unmasking the plain truth of what John Kerry has done in two decades in the U.S. Senate. Click here to get the complete special report for FREE.

Kerry, A Radical Environmentalist, Blocks Domestic Energy Production

John Kerry, endorsed for President by the Sierra Club, has a long record of advancing the agenda of the environmentalist left. The liberal League of Conservation Voters (LCV) ranks him among the top “greens” in the Senate, giving him a 92% rating in the 107th Congress and a 94% in the 106th Congress. Kerry is not only to the left of the country on environmental issues, he is to the left of his own party. To put Kerry’s high LCV rating in perspective, it is worth noting that Blanche Lincoln, the Democratic senator from Arkansas, received LCV ratings of only 32% and 31% in those Congresses. John Breaux, the Democrat senator from oil-producing Louisiana, rated a mere 20% and 19%. Kerry won his high scores in part by working to block new oil and natural gas exploration on federal land, and by forcing new regulations on American industries and consumers. Although he does not like to talk about it now, Kerry once even bragged about supporting a 50-cent tax on gasoline. Kerry opposes drilling for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and refuses to say whether he would allow drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or Rocky Mountains. Yet he claims that his goal as President would be to move America away from dependence on Middle East oil. His means for accomplishing this include “conservation”–i.e. additional regulations on U.S. industries and consumers–and by making 20% of our energy come from “renewable and alternative fuels” by 2020. Among the “alternative” fuels that Kerry promotes is wind power. Yet Kerry has refused to endorse one specific wind-farm project for his home state that a power company is already set to build. Why? One suspected reason: The site of this proposed windmill farm is in Nantucket Sound, at a location the Kerrys can see from their summer mansion on Nantucket Island. Another part of Kerry’s energy plan is to increase use of “clean” natural gas. However, this part of his plan would also be hindered by his reluctance to support new drilling. Additionally, he voted against rules changes by President Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency that are intended to make it easier to expand existing U.S. oil refineries, and thus alleviate a critical chokepoint in the U.S. gasoline supply. The National Taxpayers’ Union estimates that the environmental proposals Kerry has made in his presidential campaign would cost taxpayers $7.8 billion over ten years. But that does not account for the economic damage they would do. For example, Kerry has long backed a plan to force automakers to increase the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) for their fleets to a ridiculous 36 miles per gallon by 2015. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated that Kerry’s plan would eliminate 450,000 jobs and cost the economy $170 billion. Last year, Kerry voted for legislation that would have enacted the Kyoto treaty’s caps on carbon emissions without actually ratifying the treaty. If passed, this legislation would have dramatically lowered energy production and manufacturing in the U.S. while giving developing nations a free pass to pollute and overtake U.S. industry. The same bill would have almost eliminated energy production from coal–America’s most abundant energy source. Kerry is also co-sponsor of the so-called Clean Power Act, which, if enacted, according to the federal EIA, would cut coal-based electricity by 55% and curtail the expansion of coal power by 95% between now and 2025.

Kyoto Yes, ANWR No

PROPOSAL

VOTE

Enforce Kyoto Treaty Carbon Caps

FOR:Voted Yes on a Lieberman amendment to S 139, to force compliance with the Kyoto Treaty, which was never ratified by the Senate. The bill would have required steep and expensive reductions in carbon dioxide, Vote #420, 10/30/03.

Higher Compulsory Fuel Economy Standards

FOR:Voted no on an amendment to S 517 to forbid the national government from setting fuel efficiency standards for pickup trucks or sports utility vehicles at any higher than 20.7 miles per gallon, S 517, Vote #48, 3/13/02. Voted Yes on the Durbin amendment to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, S 14, Vote #309, 7/29/03.

Oil Drilling on Federal Land

AGAINST:The same day U.S. troops began the invasion of Iraq, Kerry voted for the Boxer amendment to effectively block drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), S Con Res 27, Vote #59, 3/19/03. Voted No on the Landrieu motion to permit oil and gas development in certain areas in the Gulf of Mexico, HR 2217, Vote #231, 7/12/01.

FOR:Voted to override President Reagan’s veto of a very costly and business-unfriendly bill expanding the Clean Water Act of 1972, 2/4/87.

‘I Lived on a Farm’

“In fact, I lived on a farm as a young kid….My parents had, when we lived in Massachusetts, we lived on a farm. I learned my first cuss word sitting on a tractor with the guy who was driving it….When I was 12 years old, my passion was being allowed to go out and sit on the John Deere and drive around a field and plow. And I learned as a kid what it was like to look in back of me and see those furrows, and see that pattern, and feel a sense of accomplishment and end up dusty and dirty and tired.”

–JOHN KERRY, explaining on a campaign tour inWisconsin that he’s really a rural guy at heart, The Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2004

“[I]n decades to come, we should not have to send young people into battle to defend and die for America’s gluttony for fossil fuel.”

–JOHN KERRY, in San Francisco the weekbefore the Iraq War began, The San Francisco Chronicle, March 14, 2003

“I’m setting a goal for America: By the year 2020, 20% of our electricity is going to be produced by alternative and renewable fuel. And a lot of that is going to come out of Iowa. And hopefully it will help you….So there are all kinds of things that we can do. Wind farms, obviously, is one other thing.”

“I am in favor of wind power, and I think we ought to find a place that is appropriate off the coast of New England to build some wind power. The question is, what is the site process going to be? You can’t just allow anybody to go build one anywhere they want without some kind of process.”

–JOHN KERRY, explaining why he doesn’tsupport building a windmill farmto generate electricity within sightof his house on Nantucket Island, The Manchester Union Leader, Dec. 26, 2003

“That black stuff is hurting us.”

–JOHN KERRY, on oil, The Los Angeles Times,March 10, 2004

“I support updating CAFE standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015….It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, smog and ozone pollution.

–JOHN KERRYAssociated Press, Jan. 25, 2004

“Cleaning up the environment is jobs. And we’re going to create 500,000 of them for Americans in the first years.”